467
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
467 points (98.7% liked)
Not The Onion
22703 readers
559 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ik this won't be a popular take because, as evidenced by this very comment section even, critical thinking isn't popular, but this is sexual harassment. Sending people porn non-consentually is sexual harassment. Yes, even when the person you're sexually harassing a piece of shit themselves, is that seriously a hard concept to grasp?? This dude is a piece of shit too if he thinks it's okay to send someone porn without consent.
EDIT: Harassment not assault.
Did you read the linked article?
If so, could you be so kind as to speak to why you disagree with its unusually thorough and detailed legal analysis of the matter at hand?
i can't take an article or author serious when they argue shreenis is not titillating.
That bish hot mid type robo pussy. I really just want to bury my face in between some fat ladies thighs. I am all giddy.
Ha! People who can't tell morals from ethics will argue with lawyers and claim the lawyers are fake, all day. No one knows more than a YouTube grad!
Wym?
Morally, I’m neutral about the act of sending the photo. It’s crass but was sent to a GOP politician, so big shrug.
Ethically, I think it violates the general principle of “don’t be a dick”, but see it as a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things.
Semantically, I don’t think it’s sexual (*in the sense of anyone getting their rocks off) in any way, shape, or form, nor credibly assault. I don’t think the photo as shown in the article is remotely distressing to anyone imaginable except a deeply-repressed GOP closet case.
Look, I didn't flash my dong to everyone in the train to arouse anyone's sexual interest so there's no serious argument it was obscene
Well, I did flash my dong to everyone in the gravy train explicitly to arouse sexual interest, which is the same reason I now turn the subject to testicular torsion. You're gunna feel this. Brace yourself, and bless your heart!
Oh, the sides do orbit, know what I mean, brother?
Dicks are irrelevant. If you can genuinely look at the picture in that article and call it "porn" you're even weirder than the fascist piece of shit it was sent to mock.
It damn sure wouldn't meet any legal definition.
For someone who started off their diatribe by accusing everyone else of lacking critical thinking skills, you damn sure have t bothered to address any of the counterpoints or analysis anyone else has brought up. It's almost like you lack critical thinking skills and are just reacting to vibes.
Don't call a dick dicker a fascist. Like, these ain't the same lasagna, hunny
Kinda rich coming from someone whose definition of sexual assault is so broad (and thereby so cheapened) that it includes sending cartoon dicks to politicians.
I wonder how this person would qualify me touching my junk at the urinal. Since it involves touching an exposed penis, I suppose they would classify urinal usage as "public masturbation" and "sexual harassment" if anyone else is in the bathroom.
Hell, according to them you're probably already a rapist for writing the word "penis" without getting consent from everyone in the thread.
By god, you're right! Off to the gulag with me.
Sexual harassment, not assault
True, edited the original comment to reflect this.
No, this is constitutionally protected political speech, as any court in the country will find when this winds up in front of them.
Questionable, but even granting that, public figures like politicians are a legally distinct kind of people who have to meet a much higher bar to claim communication is harassment, and this is a huge nothingburger. Larry Flynt is laughing from his grave.
These politicians have no idear what power mankind has at our fingertips. The ability to teleotransplace pornography into the enemy's mind has been mastered by myself, as I am a top-secret American unit of protocol of the psychic variety, I stare at goats n shit, y'know? I don't kill them, I just make them ejaculate. It's kinder, I think. More difficult, too. But I surpassed Jedi and now I need to assemble a tea of ace roginators who can handle the role of agency to be as one is an agent as I are. But I can beam tits into Chinese terrorists at a moments notice. We are in WWIII right now. Just follow me and we gun get outta this aight, aight?
Generally, harassment is a course of conduct over a period of time, not a one-off. The bar for a one-off encounter being harassment of any kind is high, with good reason.
That reason, to me, is that any reasonable person should be robust enough that all but the most serious, malicious communication should be something they can shrug off without much ill effect if it's a single isolated message. Getting a picture of a wanking cartoon character and a disparaging message isn't going to be pleasant for most people, sure, but if that's it?
The logic behind punishment for sexual harassment is not - or should not - be any different from the logic behind punishment for non-sexual harassment; it should be proportional to the harm caused, and it should take the same standard of a "person of reasonable firmness" or whatever the legalese is.
Nobody coming off well in this story.